HC Deb 13 April 1989 vol 150 cc1069-71

4.5 pm

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have heard that the Second Reading debate on the Dock Work Bill is to take place next Monday. Before the debate, I should be most grateful if you could advise the House about the position of hon. Members who stand to benefit if the Dock Work Bill is passed and the national dock labour scheme is abolished. Ought they to be allowed to vote at the end of the Second Reading debate? The Register of Members' Interests suggests that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have directorships or parliamentary consultancies that are connected with the docks. The abolition of the national dock labour scheme would directly benefit the interests that they serve in the House It is important that you should consider giving advice as to whether it is proper that such Members should vote on Second Reading.

During Business Questions there were exchanges, particularly involving my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), about the selection of members for the Standing Committee, if the Bill is given a Second Reading on Monday. The Leader of the House said that that is a matter for the Chair of the Committee of Selection. I am advised that the Chair of that Committee—who is up to his eyebrows in commercial interests, but I leave that on one side—cannot take into account Members' interests when he selects the members of Standing Committees. As the Chair of the Committee of Selection is not allowed to take such matters into account when selecting members of Standing Committees, it must therefore be a matter for you. It is for you to consider whether it is appropriate that hon. Members who will directly benefit from the abolition of the national dock labour scheme should be selected to serve on the Standing Committee.

I ask you to look at the Register of Members' Interests. I have looked at it this afternoon and found that it is littered with the names of hon. Members who have a very direct interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was clearly heard by a number of Opposition Members to say a few minutes ago that he wants a national dock strike. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Tatton is a consultant to the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators. Opencast operators will benefit if more profits are to be made in dockland by the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. Those are the interests that the hon. Member for Tatton serves.

Mr. Speaker

I think that I can deal with this matter. It has always been in order for hon. Members to vote on a matter of public policy. That is an established principle. It is not just the Chairman of the Committee of Selection but the Committee of Selection as a whole that decides who should be nominated to serve on the Committee.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling about the precedent for the selection of hon. Members, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). It is an important issue. As we know, the Transport and General Workers Union has a great deal of interest in the outcome of the Bill. If we were to consider the position of a few of my right hon. And hon. Friends, would it not also be in order to consider the position of a great many Opposition Members who are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, not least the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker

The same principle applies. It is a matter of public policy, and it has always been in order.

Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, like me, have always admired the skittish sense of humour of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), exhibited once again this afternoon. In respect of the point that he made about my own interests, declared in the Register, it certainly would not be in the interests of opencast coal producers in this country to encourage imports of coal. Therefore, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I can hardly be said to be a slavish follower of my own pecuniary interests.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has said: it is appalling that Labour Members should seek to impugn the integrity of other hon. Members, in whatever part of the House, for outside interests that are properly declared. I hope that, in speaking about the various policies that we have to debate, we do so untrammelled by personal interests. For instance, I do not impugn the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for accepting a roof over his head from the Transport and General Workers Union, nor the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose roof is provided by the same body. I certainly do not believe that, in their opposition to the Government's proposals for the docks, they are influenced in any way by the financial advantage that they gain from union sponsorship.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that we can profitably carry on this exchange.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Is it on the same point?

Mr. Skinner

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has now said that he is happy to associate himself with the proposed dock strike that is being organised by the Prime Minister and her Front Bench. Everybody in the country—at least most people—recognises that it has all been set up. As the hon. Gentleman seems so keen to declare his association, as he does not deny my hon. Friend's comment that he relishes the idea of a dock strike, and as he is quite happy to talk about the declaration of interests, of which I have none, perhaps he would be happy to tell us how much money he gets from all his interests.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two seconds ago you heard—indeed, we all heard—the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) refer in disparaging terms to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). It used to be the custom of the House that, when one Member wished to say something disparaging about another, he gave that Member notice. I wonder if you can tell us whether that is still the convention and will you invite the hon. Gentleman to say whether, in this case, he did give notice to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker

That is the convention, and in that connection may I say to the whole House that I hope that all hon. Members will read the recent report of the Select Committee on Procedure on this matter and on the question of the conventions and of good order in the House. So far as the Bill is concerned, I trust that the debate on Monday will be carried on in the best parliamentary traditions.

Mr. Madden

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave general notice to the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) in early-day motion 702, which points out that the hon. Member, who is Chairman of the Committee of Selection, holds seven directorships and four parliamentary——

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not in order now.